A WOMAN SLANDERED

New Zealand Times, Volume LIII, Issue 12394, 13 March 1926, Page 6

A WOMAN SLANDERED

GRAVE CHARGES REFUTED PLAINTIFF AWARDED £250 DAMAGES AN UNUSUAL CASE In Die Supreme Court yesterday before Mr Justice Sim, Eleanor .Heap proceeded against Elizaoeth Green for £BOO damages for alleged slapder. Mr Alex. Dunn appeared for plaintiff, and Mr O. C. Mazengarb for the defence. Plaintiff’s statement of claim was to the effect’ that whilst employed as saleswoman by McDuff’s, of Cuba street, defendant had maliciously and falsely published concerning the plaintiff to Mr Richards, manager of the store, th at plaintiff had stolen tobacco, in consequence of which plaintiff was summarily, dismissed. On the same day, December 23rd. 1925, defendant further stated: ‘‘Stanislaus has been out at night with your wife, and misconducted himself with her. He is in McDuffs every day, seeing your wife. He takes her home every night to Courtenay Place.’’ Plaintiff claimed that as a result of these statements her reputaftion had suffered, and she claimed special damages £IOO for loss of employment, £350 in respect of the allegations as regard theit,' and £550 in respect to the allegations of adulteTy, a total of . £BOO. , 1 The defence was to the effect that defendant honestly believed the statement made regarding the theft to be correct. The alleged statement regarding adultery was denied in toto.

CASE FOR PLAINTIFF Mr Dunn, in opening for the plaintiff, stated that Mr and Mrs Heap were married in England eix years, ago, arriving in-Wellington in October. Having no children Mrs Heap went to work with MoDuff’s Hardware ■ Company, her 1 husband being a salesman in the employ of the Stewart Timber Co. The. defendant was a retired hotelkeeper, and Mr Stanislaus was a friend of the defendant, having lived at hsr house for some years. Mr/ Stanislaus and plaintiff were from the same town in England, and resumed their ’riendship when thev met in' New; 7-viland. Mr Heap had brought Stanislaus to his house on three occasions when be hr d met the plaintiff, these Del tie times they had met. On December 23rd defendant had called on v Mr Heap, accusing plaintiff of ‘having given away certain goods of her employers to Stanislaus, and also having committed adpltery with him. She had also gone to the plaintiff’s employer, mating’ tho same charge rgaiqr-t her, with the result that she was summarily discharged. The at.:unert appeared so ridiculous to the Heaps, and only possible as being actuated by jeal. onsy, that they had called upon Mrs Green to ask that she .lub’-V’-v withdraw the charge and -po)ogis3. On three occasions they called i.-rr rhis purpose, but Mrs Green had r“fus»d to see them. The present proceedings had then been taken.

...The question for t'e iury’ ccursel proceeded, was to decide whether the plaintiff l honestly believed what, . The said to. he true, or whether she' ‘was actuated bv spite, Uhder certain circumstances a statement of 1 this sort might be, justifiable under what was knoiwn as a privileged occasion ■, The present, however, it was .contend?-'’, was not such an occasion.- '

SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS

Walter Heap, husband of the plaintiff, gave evidence of having met -the .defendant through Mr .Stanislaus, wh'm he had Known from the tinfe i-em five years of aero. He first met Af>s Green at tlie end of. October. Os le--cember 23rd Mrs Green called to set* him at Stewart and- Company. he had asked to see him privatelv, »nd she had. then said: "You’re wii'e is t thief. I know it because I--.-as in Mr Stanfslans’s room, and saw seme tins; of tobacco. I know that-that'toibsem was not obtained honestlv. She 1 had said that- Stanislaus had s'rnck , her, and knocked her bnconsc’ous—that be was sick of her. She had gone on to sav that Stanislaus had ccmmitted misconduct with his wife, - end- that he was alwavs-calling on her at MbDuff’i-. aud used to see-her home .from votk every evening, She had *a;d that she had be°n warned neamst Sianislaua, but had taken him into her home because she loved him. It w agreed that witness should meet Mrs Green in the afternoon, and when she came, she had told .him that she had informed McDuff’s of her charges, and that his wife was being dismissed. '

DISMISSED ON SUSPICION William Thomas Richards, director of McDuff’s, Ltd., gave evidence of. the defendant having called on her on December 23rd. She had adked him whether, if she told him that one of his employees was giving parcels-out over the coupter, he would he able to place the blame. He had .said that the only one he could suspect would be Mrs Heap. Defendant had then told him that that was correct.. As,- the result of this, he Had informed plaintiff that his confidence in her had , been completely undermined, and that he wished her to leave immediately. Mrs Green had told him that. Stanislaus had arranged with plaintiff to pick up a parcel of tobacco the following evening, and that she ,felt it her duty to inform him of what was. going on. She said . she had seen plaintiff give Stanislaus a pound of. tobacco and cigarettes for 4s. ‘ Eleanor Heap, ; plaintiff, stated that on the occasion on, which the tobacco had been sold, Stanislaus had naked for a pound of tobacco, tender-, ing a £1 note, from which he 'received some change. He had then asked for. two packets of cigarettes, and had. handed over 4s, receiving change from that.

A COMPLETE DENIAL Mr Mazengarb, in opening his case, stated that two lines of defence, would be set up: first, that the words attributed to the defendant were not used; secondly, that the defendant did use the words as stated by Mr Richards, but that, there was no charge whatever of adultery. Defendant admitted having gone to Mr Richards, and also to Mr Heap, hut that only the strongest sense of duty compelled her io. do this. Mr Stanislaus was an old friend of ten years' standing, having stayed at her house as a guest many times. Mr Stanislaus was in the habit of calling at her house at 4.30 every evening for a cup of tea. In December this practice was discontinued. On December 23rd, defendant and Stanislaus Had gone out to buy Christinas presents, and had entered McDuff’s. Hero she had seen the alleged sale of tobacco, and had heard arrangements made as to lifting a parcel. That evening Stanislaus had told her that an’ arrangement had been made between Mm and Mrs Heap that he was to get his tpbaeco at a great reduction.

A PURCHASE OF TOBACCO^ Vincent Stanislaus, clerk. Pensions Department, deposed to having,- on December 23rd, gone iifto McDuff’s to purchase tobacco, and had approached the counter where Mrs Heap was serv. ing. He bad asked Mrs-Heap for one pound of tobacco, matches, and a tin of-50 cigarettes. Plaintiff had given him the articles asked for, and he had given her a. sum of silver more than, sufficient to pay for the goods. She had taken only two florins, and had handed hack Is out of'this amount. He had told Mrs Green after leaving the shop that he was in the habit of obtaining tobacco at less than cost price. -Mrs Green had remonstrated strongly with him for this, and he had told her to mind her own business. Before leaving the shop plaintiff had asked him to call tho next evening to lift a unreel of toilet goods for her. Mr Mazengarb:. There was some arrangement between you and Mrs Heap previously. Witness : Yes. It was to fulfil this arrangement—— Mr Mazenearb: All right. Tell us what yon told Mrs Green?—l told her that I had Dartlv agreed to take a parcel for Mrs Heap. ' Some time previously, witness stated, Mrs Heap had, in her husband’s presence, aske'd him to sn for a pareel to MoDuff’s, ns she did not like to be seen leaving the shoo with it herself. Plaintiff’s .husband had said to her, ‘‘You Had Wetter be careful,” and plaintiff had said that there was no danger. _Mr Dunn: Do I understand yon to say that you were a partner to swindling McDuff’s?—l was never connected with a swindle. How long have you been a civil servant ?—About nine months.Bto yon, expect to remain long) . a.

civil servant after the evidence you have given to-day?—l will allow the Civil Service - Commissioner to judge of that.

Now, is Mrs ■ Green the sort of woman who would allow a thief to stay in her house?-—I was not a thief. . I am putting it to you that Mrs Green . is qnite a good woman—not such a one ns would allow a thief in here house P—There was no question of

But you say that you got these goods without paying full value. Were you not. then, a thief?—l was a party to »■. dishonest action .committed by mte.Hean. T am not a thief. Jwizaheth; Green, defendant, gave evidence along the lines indicated by her counsel. , -s*®! 5° no H; i" summing up, sub. hhe following questions to the

(1) Did the defendant make the statement deposed to by ulajntiff ? - (2) Was . such statement defamntory to plaintiff. (3) Did defendant honestly believe it to be true, and that it was ,f, r -rrr y , to make such statement? (4) Was she actuated by malice in making such statements? (51 The sanje to f to statements made to Heap? to'_J*hnt damages should he given? The jury, after a retirement of 45 minute-, returned a verdict for £250 to plaintiff. - . ,